Efficacy Of Homeopathy Research Articles

Comparison of Homeopathy, Placebo and Antibiotic Treatment of Clinical Mastitis in Dairy Cows – Methodological Issues and Results from a Randomized‐clinical Trial

Based on the widespread use of homeopathy in treatment of animal disease and the poor documentation of its possible effects and consequences, a clinical trial was carried out in order to evaluate the efficacy of homeopathy in treatment of clinical mastitis in dairy cows and a design for clinical studies on homeopathic treatment, taking into account the guidelines for randomized-clinical trials (RCT) as well as the basic principles of homeopathy. A three-armed, stratified, semi-crossover design comparing homeopathy, placebo and a standardized antibiotic treatment was used. Fifty-seven dairy cows were included. Evaluation was made by two score scales, with score I measuring acute symptoms and score II measuring chronic symptoms, and by recording the frequencies of responders to treatment based on four different responder definitions. Significant reductions in mastitis signs were observed in all treatment groups. Homeopathic treatment was not statistically different from either placebo or antibiotic treatment at day 7 (P = 0.56, P = 0.09) or at day 28 (P = 0.07, P = 0.35). The antibiotic treatment was significantly better than placebo measured by the reduction in score I (P < 0.01). Two-thirds of the cases both in the homeopathy and placebo groups responded clinically within 7 days. The outcome measured by frequencies of responders at day 28 was poor in all treatment groups. Evidence of efficacy of homeopathic treatment beyond placebo was not found in this study, but the design can be useful in subsequent larger trials on individualized homeopathic treatment.

High sensitivity 1H-NMR spectroscopy of homeopathic remedies made in water

BackgroundThe efficacy of homeopathy is controversial. Homeopathic remedies are made via iterated shaking and dilution, in ethanol or in water, from a starting substance. Remedies of potency 12 C or higher are ultra-dilute (UD), i.e. contain zero molecules of the starting material. Various hypotheses have been advanced to explain how a UD remedy might be different from unprepared solvent. One such hypothesis posits that a remedy contains stable clusters, i.e. localized regions where one or more hydrogen bonds remain fixed on a long time scale. High sensitivity proton nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy has not previously been used to look for evidence of differences between UD remedies and controls.MethodsHomeopathic remedies made in water were studied via high sensitivity proton nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy. A total of 57 remedy samples representing six starting materials and spanning a variety of potencies from 6 C to 10 M were tested along with 46 controls.ResultsBy presaturating on the water peak, signals could be reliably detected that represented H-containing species at concentrations as low as 5 μM. There were 35 positions where a discrete signal was seen in one or more of the 103 spectra, which should theoretically have been absent from the spectrum of pure water. Of these 35, fifteen were identified as machine-generated artifacts, eight were identified as trace levels of organic contaminants, and twelve were unexplained. Of the unexplained signals, six were seen in just one spectrum each. None of the artifacts or unexplained signals occurred more frequently in remedies than in controls, using a p < .05 cutoff. Some commercially prepared samples were found to contain traces of one or more of these small organic molecules: ethanol, acetate, formate, methanol, and acetone.ConclusionNo discrete signals suggesting a difference between remedies and controls were seen, via high sensitivity 1H-NMR spectroscopy. The results failed to support a hypothesis that remedies made in water contain long-lived non-dynamic alterations of the H-bonding pattern of the solvent.

Patient-Practitioner-Remedy (PPR) Entanglement, Part 7: A Gyroscopic Metaphor for the Vital Force and Its Use to Illustrate Some of the Empirical Laws of Homeopathy

Background: One of the principle obstacles to homeopathy’s general acceptance has been its perceived lack of sound theoretical basis within accepted deterministic bio-medical thought. This impasse might be circumvented if instead, appeal was made to the nondeterministic concepts of the physical sciences, e.g., quantum theory and its notions of entanglement, nonlocality, and uncertainty; Weak Quantum Theory (WQT) and Patient-Practitioner-Remedy (PPR) Entanglement representing two new complementary strands of thought with the potential to create a new theoretical basis for homeopathy. Objective: The goal of this present study was to generate a preliminary mathematical model of the action and reaction of the Vital Force to diseases and remedies within the developing contexts of WQT and PPR Entanglement, based on the metaphor of a hypothetical ‘quantized’ gyroscope as its physical representation. Methods: The physics of gyroscopic motion was combined with the quantum theory describing rotating objects (without some of its imposed limitations, e.g., Planck’s constant, in line with the relaxation of some of orthodox quantum theory’s axioms as proposed by WQT). Thus, increase or decrease in the rate of spin of the Vital Force’s hypothetical gyroscope was described in terms of quantized ‘shift operators’ constructed mathematically from the known ‘complementarity’ of a remedy’s primary and secondary symptoms, expressed in the notation of complex numbers. Ultimately, this generates a hypothetical ‘wave function’ for the Vital Force. Results: This hypothetical ‘wave function’ has been used to illustrate certain empirical observations of homeopathy and conventional medicine, e.g., the biphasal action of remedies encapsulated in the Arndt-Schulz Law, Wilder’s Law of Initial Value, and some of the results of homeopathic provings. Conclusion: This preliminary theoretical analysis suggests that perhaps these less well-known empirical observations should be reinvestigated and, if confirmed, could begin ultimately to provide a much-needed alternative to the doubleblind placebo-controlled trial as a means of investigating and testing the efficacy of homeopathy.

An overview of two Cochrane systematic reviews of complementary treatments for chronic asthma: acupuncture and homeopathy

Background: Acupuncture and homeopathy are commonly used complementary treatments for chronic asthma. This review summarizes two recently updated Cochrane systematic reviews that assess the safety and efficacy of homeopathy or acupuncture in individuals with chronic stable asthma. Inclusion criteria: Only randomized-controlled trials were considered for inclusion. Statistical aggregation of the data was undertaken where possible. Search strategy: Searches for both reviews were done with the assistance of the Cochrane Airways Group, and through electronic alerts. Results: Acupuncture: 11 studies with 324 participants met the inclusion criteria. Trial reporting was poor, and the trial quality was deemed inadequate to generalize the findings. There was variation in the type of active and sham acupunctures, the outcomes assessed and the time points measured. The points used in the sham arm of some studies are used for the treatment of asthma according to traditional Chinese medicine. Two studies used individualized treatment strategies, and one study used a combination strategy of formula acupuncture with the addition of individualized points. No statistically significant or clinically relevant effects were found for acupuncture compared with sham acupuncture. When data from two small studies were pooled, no difference in lung function was observed (post-treatment FEV 1): standardized mean difference 0.12, 95% confidence interval −0.31 to 0.55). Conclusion: Acupuncture: There is not enough evidence to recommend the use of acupuncture in the treatment of asthma. Further research needs to be undertaken, and this should take into account the different types of acupuncture practiced. Results: Homeopathy: Six trials with a total of 556 people were included in the review. These trials were all placebo-controlled and double-blind, but were of variable quality. Standardized treatments in these trials are unlikely to represent common homeopathic practice where treatment tends to be individualized. The results of the studies are conflicting in terms of effects on lung function. There has been only a limited attempt to measure a “package of care” effect (i.e. the effect of the medication as well as the consultation, which is considered a vital part of individualized homeopathic practice). Conclusion: Homeopathy: There is not enough evidence to reliably assess the possible role of homeopathy in the treatment of asthma. Further studies could assess whether individuals respond to a “package of care” rather than the homeopathic intervention alone.

Homeopathy and Women's Health Care

A 1997 survey revealed that 40% of Americans use some type of complementary therapy or medicine and that many use such therapies in conjunction with treatments prescribed to them by conventional medical practitioners. One alternative modality that is growing in popularity is homeopathy. Although use of this modality is growing, many health care providers know very little about it. This article provides an introduction to homeopathy, including its historical origins and theoretical principles. Also included is a review of two meta-analyses that examined the efficacy of homeopathy in clinical trials. The homeopathic approach to prolonged pregnancy is presented as an example of a potential application to women's health. Information on education and certification in homeopathy is provided, along with resources on homeopathy available to women's health care providers. Implications for nursing practice are discussed.

Integrating homeopathy and biomedicine: medical practice and knowledge production among German homeopathic physicians

Abstract The purpose of this study is to assess the ways in which homeopathic physicians deal with the conceptual tensions between homeopathy and biomedicine. The data‐collection included twenty semi‐structured interviews which were conducted with homeopathic physicians in Berlin. Three distinct patterns of homeopathic practice emerged from the data: a) segregating the patients into categories of homeopathic and biomedical patients; b) complementing a predominantly homeopathic practice with a few biomedical strategies for diagnostics; c) focusing on homeopathy and condemning biomedicine with the exception of emergency medicine and surgery. On the level of medical knowledge the physicians’ perspectives on the efficacy of homeopathy and some of its controversial concepts (opposition to vaccinations, miasm, vital force) are examined. It also becomes evident that German homeopathic physicians do not sacrifice central aspects of homeopathic concepts in order to gain legitimacy. Finally, it is argued that complementary medicine and alternative medicine are both rather unfortunate terms for studying homeopathy in micro‐sociological settings. Heterodox medicine is favoured.

Complementary therapies for pharmacists

I must admit that it was with some trepidation that I undertook to review this book being a sceptic when it comes to many of the complementary and alternative medical (CAM) therapies. However, regardless of one's personal position there is no denying the enormous increase in the public's demand for CAM treatments. Consequently, healthcare practitioners and in this case pharmacists are being increasingly expected to have a working knowledge of CAM and its interface with orthodox medicine. Despite the author's background in homeopathy he reviews both the positive and negative trial results of this complementary approach and admits ‘a great deal more work is necessary to prove the efficacy of homeopathy to the satisfaction of sceptical colleagues’. Indeed, this book was not written with a view to providing irrefutable evidence for CAM but to provide a balanced overview for the practicing pharmacist, and to this end it is a great success. The book is divided into four parts: General aspects of CAM. This section deals with the classification of CAM, the approach to healing, the demand for CAM, research into CAM and integrating CAM into the UK healthcare system. This section sets the scene for more detailed consideration of the individual therapies. Therapies most appropriate to pharmacy with guidance on how they can be integrated into practice including homeopathy and anthroposophy, medical herbalism, aromatherapy and flower remedy therapy. Ethnic traditional therapies including Chinese and Ayurvedic medicines. One of the least attractive treatment regimens described in this section is an ayurvedic treatment regimen known as pancha karma and involves therapeutic vomiting, purgation, enemas, nasal aspiration of herbs and therapeutic release of toxic blood. Other CAM therapies about which pharmacists may be asked. For example, naturopathy, diagnostic therapies (iridology, kinesiology), manual therapies (chiropractic, massage, osteopathy and reflexology) and mind and body therapies (colour, crystal and music). Each complementary approach is defined, followed by sections on its history, theory, practice, evidence of effectiveness and safety. The adverse effects of each therapy are described and where applicable drug interactions highlighted. Whilst the drug interactions of some herbal preparations such as St John's Wort are well known, potential interactions involving other CAM therapies are less well defined, e.g. aromatherapy oils and warfarin. These obviously warrant further study. Overall, this book is well researched, written in a very readable style and presented in a logical sequence. Each chapter is well referenced. Whilst being written for the practising pharmacist this book provides a useful guide for anyone with an interest in CAM therapies. Like myself, on reading this book you may still be unconvinced regarding the effectiveness of many of the complementary treatments described but you will have a good overview of the subject.

The perceived efficacy of homeopathy and orthodox medicine: a vignette-based study

Objective: This study examined whether people thought neurotics were more likely to ‘get better’ when using CAM rather than orthodox medicine. Design: A total of 165 participants completed a four part questionnaire, in which they were required to read eight vignettes (each about 70 words long) describing a British male patient who either visits a Homeopath or General Practitioner with a specific and different medical problem. In the vignette the patient gets better after treatment or remains unwell and they are described as either emotionally balanced (stable) or slightly neurotic in character (2 × 2 × 2 design). Participants were required to rate each vignette on criteria such as, did they think the treatment was effective, and did they think the person would remain feeling better. Results: Homeopathy was perceived as more effective for treating patients with unstable psychological characteristics and orthodox medicine was seen as more effective for treating patients with stable psychological characteristics. Homeopathy was perceived as more effective by participants who themselves used complementary medicine. Participants who had visited a complementary therapist felt more strongly that psychological factors were important in illness than participants who had never consulted a complementary practitioner. Non-complementary medicine users perceived orthodox medicine to be more effective than complementary users.

Evidence of clinical efficacy of homeopathy. A meta-analysis of clinical trials. HMRAG. Homeopathic Medicines Research Advisory Group.

To establish, using a systematic review and meta-analysis, whether there is any evidence from randomised controlled clinical trials of the efficacy of homeopathic treatment in patients with any disease. Published and unpublished reports of controlled clinical trials available up to June 1998, identified by searching bibliographic databases (Medline, Embase, Biosis, PsychInfo, Cinahl, British Library Stock Alert Service, SIGLE, Amed), references lists of selected papers, hand searching homeopathic journals and conference abstracts, and contacting pharmaceutical companies. TRIALS SELECTION: Trials were selected using an unblinded process by two reviewers. The selection criteria were randomised, controlled trials in which the efficacy of homeopathic treatment was assessed relative to placebo in patients using clinical or surrogate endpoints. Prevention trials or those evaluating only biological effects were excluded. One hundred and eighteen randomised trials were identified and evaluated for inclusion. Sixteen trials, representing 17 comparisons and including a total of 2,617 evaluated patients, fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Data were extracted by two reviewers independently, using a summary form. Disagreements were resolved by a third person. The evidence was synthesised by combining the significance levels (P values) for the primary outcomes from the individual trials. The combined P value for the 17 comparisons was highly significant P = 0.000036. However, sensitivity analysis showed that the P value tended towards a non-significant value (P = 0.08) as trials were excluded in a stepwise manner based on their level of quality. There is some evidence that homeopathic treatments are more effective than placebo; however, the strength of this evidence is low because of the low methodological quality of the trials. Studies of high methodological quality were more likely to be negative than the lower quality studies. Further high quality studies are needed to confirm these results.

Homeopathic Prophylaxis of Headaches and Migraine? A Systematic Review

Homeopathy is often advocated as a prophylaxis of migraine and headaches. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the clinical trials, testing the efficacy of homeopathy for these indications. Independent computerized literature searches were carried out in 4 databases. Only randomized, placebo-controlled trials were included. Four such studies were found. Their methodological quality was variable but, on average, satisfactory. One study suggested that homeopathic remedies were effective. The other, methodologically stronger trials did not support this notion. It is concluded that the trial data available to date do not suggest that homeopathy is effective in the prophylaxis of migraine or headache beyond a placebo effect. J Pain Symptom Manage 1999;18:353–357.

Meta‐analysis of the clinical efficacy of homoeopathy draws weak conclusion

Meta‐analysis of the clinical efficacy of homoeopathy draws weak conclusion

Understanding Homeopathy

Interest in homeopathy is growing because of the costs and impersonality of modern medical care and the increase in infectious diseases that do not respond to allopathic medicine. Extreme dilutions are the main reason many scientists doubt the effectiveness of homeopathic products. Scientists have petitioned the Food and Drug Administration to hold homeopathic products to the same standards as other drugs. While some studies support the efficacy of homeopathy, controlled clinical studies determining effective levels of dilution for these substances are needed.

Analysis of Homeopathic Treatment of Childhood Diarrhea

The article entitled "Treatment of Acute Childhood Diarrhea With Homeopathic Medicine: A Randomized Clinical Dual in Nicaragua" by Jacobs et al (Pediatrics. 1994;93:719-725) reported a study of the efficacy of homeopathy in the treatment of acute childhood diarrhea. Children with diarrhea were entered into the study if the diarrhea was not severe (type C severe diarrhea patients were sent to a hospital). Oral rehydration therapy was begun, and subjects were randomly assigned to receive either homeopathic preparations or placebos. The preparations were determined by a computerized therapeutic scheme. This scheme depended on a family observer's answers to questions from an "experienced homeopathic practitioner." The article purports to show a statistically significant difference favoring the treatment group over the controls. The report has faults of 1) purpose, 2) method, 3) diagnosis and treatment selection, 4) results interpretation, and 5) authors' editorial comments. The reported difference between treatment and control groups are of dubious significance. This article argues that the study's conclusion that homeopathy is effective for childhood diarrhea is unwarranted. Homeopaths claim that homeopathy is an "alternative" medical system. The authors justify their research in the hope that homeopathy would have public health importance. If true, one would presume the system to be equal to or better than oral rehydration therapy. Therefore, even if it were positive, this study would not prove homeopathy to be an alternative to the standard treatment of childhood diarrhea. METHODS Government agencies do not routinely assay homeopathic products. Homeopathic products have been found to be adulterated with active material.1-3

Clinical trials of homoeopathy.

To establish whether there is evidence of the efficacy of homoeopathy from controlled trials in humans.Criteria based meta-analysis. Assessment of the methodological quality of 107 controlled trials in 96 published reports found after an extensive search. Trials were scored using a list of predefined criteria of good methodology, and the outcome of the trials was interpreted in relation to their quality.Controlled trials published world wide.Results of the trials with the best methodological quality. Trials of classical homoeopathy and several modern varieties were considered separately.In 14 trials some form of classical homoeopathy was tested and in 58 trials the same single homoeopathic treatment was given to patients with comparable conventional diagnosis. Combinations of several homoeopathic treatments were tested in 26 trials; isopathy was tested in nine trials. Most trials seemed to be of very low quality, but there were many exceptions. The results showed a positive trend regardless of the quality of the trial or the variety of homeopathy used. Overall, of the 105 trials with interpretable results, 81 trials indicated positive results whereas in 24 trials no positive effects of homoeopathy were found. The results of the review may be complicated by publication bias, especially in such a controversial subject as homoeopathy.At the moment the evidence of clinical trials is positive but not sufficient to draw definitive conclusions because most trials are of low methodological quality and because of the unknown role of publication bias. This indicates that there is a legitimate case for further evaluation of homoeopathy, but only by means of well performed trials.